The diverse genomic landscape of low-risk prostate cancer

Cooperberg, M.R.; Erho, Nicholas; Chan, June M.; Feng, Felix Y.; Cowan, J.; Simko, Jeff; Ong, Kai-Ren; Alshalalfa, Mohamed; Kolisnik, Tyler; Margrave, Jennifer; Aranes, Maria; Plessis, Marguerite du; Buerki, Christine; Zhao, Shanshan; Tenggara, Imelda; Davicioni, Elai; Carroll, Paul

doi:10.1016/s1569-9056(17)30311-1

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our data demonstrate that approximately 15% of patients with NCCN who are at low risk would be reclassified to intermediate risk by the clinical-genomic risk grouping system and may not be the ideal candidates for AS. This is almost identical to an independent study of low-risk AS candidates, where Cooperberg et al 23 demonstrated that 13% of patients at low risk had more aggressive genomic features. Furthermore, 42% to 56% of patients with NCCN and favorable-intermediate risk would be reclassified as low risk by the clinical-genomic risk groups and could increase the confidence of clinicians and patients that the subset of those with favorable-intermediate–risk may be candidates for AS.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…This is in contrast to normal clinical use tissue, which has a high pass rate, even for patients with NCCN at very-low risk. 23 Given constant stage and grade migration, it is challenging to simultaneously have modern patients who also have long-term outcomes. For example, 12-year outcomes were recently reported from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 9601, a trial that started over 20 years ago.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development and Validation of a Novel Integrated Clinical-Genomic Risk Group Classification for Localized Prostate Cancer

Spratt

Zhang

Santiago-Jiménez³

et al. 2018

JCO

169

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose It is clinically challenging to integrate genomic-classifier results that report a numeric risk of recurrence into treatment recommendations for localized prostate cancer, which are founded in the framework of risk groups. We aimed to develop a novel clinical-genomic risk grouping system that can readily be incorporated into treatment guidelines for localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Two multicenter cohorts (n = 991) were used for training and validation of the clinical-genomic risk groups, and two additional cohorts (n = 5,937) were used for reclassification analyses. Competing risks analysis was used to estimate the risk of distant metastasis. Time-dependent c-indices were constructed to compare clinicopathologic risk models with the clinical-genomic risk groups. Results With a median follow-up of 8 years for patients in the training cohort, 10-year distant metastasis rates for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low, favorable-intermediate, unfavorable-intermediate, and high-risk were 7.3%, 9.2%, 38.0%, and 39.5%, respectively. In contrast, the three-tier clinical-genomic risk groups had 10-year distant metastasis rates of 3.5%, 29.4%, and 54.6%, for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk, respectively, which were consistent in the validation cohort (0%, 25.9%, and 55.2%, respectively). C-indices for the clinical-genomic risk grouping system (0.84; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.93) were improved over NCCN (0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.86) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.84), and 30% of patients using NCCN low/intermediate/high would be reclassified by the new three-tier system and 67% of patients would be reclassified from NCCN six-tier (very-low- to very-high-risk) by the new six-tier system. Conclusion A commercially available genomic classifier in combination with standard clinicopathologic variables can generate a simple-to-use clinical-genomic risk grouping that more accurately identifies patients at low, intermediate, and high risk for metastasis and can be easily incorporated into current guidelines to better risk-stratify patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%